IMJohnCox wrote on 02/06/14 at 23:45:09:
Yes, apologies Taljechin; had I read your thread more carefully I would have noticed that it was not on the usual topic but the related how-do-I-not-lose-to-the-Exchange topic, which is far more sensible (and one I have little to contribute to).
I'm not sure what your database research is supposed to suggest, but I assure you I've had plenty of games against the Exchange. I had it in the Lloyds Bank Masters I got my first IM norm in (1981, probably), the National Club final 1983 or so, against Dibyendu Barua in a weekender in about 1986, and in a local league and the Shropshire Open in the last couple of years, just off the top of my head. It doesn't surprise me to hear none of those games are in the databases.
No problem, it's easy to get stuck in a response pattern on the forum (I noticed that you had a similar entry at
http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.se/2007/12/interesting-french-exchange.htm... some years ago).
In my database you have 37 French games, and even a nice win vs Fernandez at Lloyds Bank 1981. So, at least it's a funny coincidence that all your Exchange games have disappeared just when you mention them - Murphy's law perhaps?
I don't think I agree that the topic is "how-do-I-not-lose-to-the-Exchange", I'm more looking for a middleground between "no respect for the exchange due to it being misplayed by draw-seeking low rateds" which seem to be your position, and "the exchange is boring and drawish".
Imo the topic is "how to get reasonable counter chances when White is an equal or stronger opponent, i.e.
not being forced to play for just the draw as black, while not taking too much of a risk either, as in 3/4...Qxd5 for example".
It would be interesting to see your solution to that, if you care to share a game or two? Btw, I just noticed that Kramnik has been using 3.exd5 (mainly blitz/rapid) since 1996, with a quite nice score, often choosing to delay Bd3 considerably.
Tullius wrote on 02/06/14 at 19:33:33:
Quote:Regarding 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.exd5, I don't think you can go too far wrong with Watson's recommendations (and he explicitly refers to both Vitugov and Simon Williams' book Attacking Chess: The French in places), as he offers choices between solid and sharp lines at key moments. In particular after 4.exd5 exd5 5.Bd3, Watson covers both 5...Nc6 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 (which Vitugov regards as "asking for trouble") and 5...c6.
Vitugovs comment is spot on. In the variantion with a later 7...Nge7 8.Qh5 Be6 9.Rb1 b6 and later 0-0-0 Vitugov adds the black king can feel never safe. Berg underestimated it in his recent book. I followed Berg blindly (this is my fault of course) in a correspondence game and run with his recommendation quickly in trouble.
It seems to me that the best way for Black is 5...Nf6 (Moskalenko) or 5...c6.
I haven't got Berg's books yet, but noticed that he seemed to have relied on an interesting retreat 5...Nc6 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Nce7!? which looks sympathetic to me, Nb8 can be hard to activate so Nc6-e7 clears c6 for the pawn while covering f5 and Ng8 can go to its most active square... Does he mention this line in the book?
The only time he's played ...0-0-0 seems to be in that ...Nge7 line, and although he won, White looked better to me too. But castling into a half open b-file may be one of those things Black needs to do sometimes to get counterchances. Any suggestions for rules of thumb under which circumstances ...0-0-0 is good and when it's too risky?